Suffice it here to say, that this man and Earl John came to such a deadly feud, that blows were struck by the adherents of each party, and a knight of Earl John's killed. On this, Earl John, supported by William Marshall, Earl Striguil, called a national council in St Paul's Churchyard in London, and with it a "Folkmote" of the citizens of London. At which great national council and Folkmote, the Chancellor was formally deposed from his office; which deposition affords the first example recorded in English History of a minister of the Crown being made responsible to the people of England for the advice which he might give to his sovereign. Thanks for this to William, Earl Marshall; the ever-to-be-remembered Earl of Pembroke. This churchyard council and Folkmote of the citizens was reported by his basely faithful Chancellor to King Richard, then in the hands of the Emperor of the Romans, and calling vehemently upon his ministers, earls, barons, and loyal subjects to ransom him. It excited and exasperated his Majesty.

At this painful juncture of Richard's career, Hubert Walter, the great and enlightened statesman of John's reign,-he being a crusader and prisoner to the Emperor, along with his master,—came to England with Peter de Rupibus, another of the leaders in the succeeding reign, to raise the required ransom for the deliverance of the King. As for William, Bishop of Ely, the Chancellor and Regent, the King took his part altogether, and stood by him, as long as he lived, which was for seven years after this.

Earl John with his supporter William Marshall was to be blasted by the royal displeasure. John was "traitor," leagued with the King of France, against his "King and brother;" and at home "worse than traitor," charged, as he was, by this Chancellor with "having designs upon the Crown, as supposing that his sovereign and brother would never be able to return to England." No sooner had Richard returned to England, which he did immediately, the ransom having been forwarded, than he made an

attack upon Earl John and his castles, commencing with the siege of Nottingham Castle, which he took; and put the prisoners to ransom at fixed prices.

Soon after this, Richard carried his arms against France, and there he ended his miserable and disastrous life. He was mortally wounded by the arrow of Bertram de Gurdun at the siege of the castle of Chalus. Seeing his end to be drawing nigh, he began to turn his thoughts to the disposition of his kingdom of England, and his other possessions.

same.

To his brother John he left his kingdom, with his possessions in France; and ordered all those then present to do homage for the He also commanded his castles to be given to him, with three-fourths of his treasure. Surely we have in all this evidence that the dying Richard saw through the slanders and the slanderers of his brother John!

In leaving his kingdom of England to John his brother, instead of to Arthur his nephew, Richard committed an irregularity; but such a one as had been not infrequent. This Arthur, Duke of Brittany, was so completely French, and so much under the control of Philip, the King of that nation, whose daughter Mary he had married, that he would have been rejected by the English nobility and people. It is quite certain that Arthur, the boy-tool and son-in-law of Philip the King of the French, never would have been acknowledged as King of England and Duke of Normandy by the nation.

Arthur, though only a boy of fifteen years, had already been in arms, under French colours, against the English king in Normandy, in the year A.D. 1196, when Constance, his mother, (a French princess,) aiding the same cause, was taken prisoner, and placed in confinement by her husband, Randulph Blandeville, Earl of Chester.

Although Earl John had been disgraced at court, and William Marshall, Earl of Striguil, along with him, by Richard I. and

his Chancellor, they yet lived in the affections of the people of England for the part they had.taken in opposing the measures of the tyrannous reign of that king.

At the death of Richard I., Earl John, soon to become KING JOHN, was idolised by the people of England of all classes, and was, moreover, the most popular Earl in Europe, wherever the tyrannies of William Longchamp, Bishop of Ely, the chief minister of Richard I., were known.

So that it is not difficult to see here, if, on the one hand, there was forethought and a dying instinct on the part of Richard in setting aside Arthur, his nephew, there was likewise a tacit admission that Earl John was the name that would rally the nation around the throne. It was a noble heritage on which John entered; and nobly did he discharge to the darkened close its difficult and overwhelming duties.

CHAPTER II.

JOHN CREATED KING BY ELECTION.

ON the 6th day of April A.D. 1199, Earl John, the younger brother of the just deceased, King Richard I., and sixth and youngest son, and a dutiful and affectionate son too, of Henry II., succeeded to the Crown of England and its dependencies (the guerdons half of heritage and half of conquest) in Anjou, Touraine, Maine, with Poictiers, Normandy, and Guienne.

The designation of John by Richard was ratified by the ELECTION OF THE NATION, which had not forgotten the St Paul's Churchyard council and public meeting of the citizens of London, nor the Earl's brave-hearted resistance to the Chancellor, to the verge of treason.

This power of election was familiar to England, both in the Saxon, Danish, and Norman times. Even Alfred (it needs not to name him "great," for the world knows but one) was the fourth son of Ethelwolf, and succeeded Ethelbald, Ethelbert, and Ethelred, his brothers, all his nephews (of whom there were many) being thus ignored. Who doubteth the wisdom of the precedent? We know what England got in her Alfred! We know what she would not have got in either of Ethelbert's two sons, or Ethelred's sons or daughter. It will be seen what the gain or loss was in passing by the boy-duke of Brittany.

Besides the designation by Richard, the new King occupied his throne with the sanction of the nobles, prelates, ministers of state, and the other "heads" of the "inviolate kingdom." THE

PEOPLE were as yet without voice; nevertheless, the succession sprang out of national choice, as well as regal inheritance.

This starting-point, a designated succession, I would have merely noticed, had not coincident occurrences happened to bring into relief every fact and act in the reign of John. Even herein historians and their simple readers have blamed and accused him. What is the secret of the accusations that nestle, newt and toadlike, here? King John would be "King of England" from the first, no vassal, much less slave! Ha! he dared to assert his prerogatives within his own dominions. Against whom? Against the boldest priest that ever pretended to hold the keys of heaven and hell from Peter, the fisherman of Galilee. John was King of England when Innocent III. ("impious innocent," Pericles iv. 4) was Pope. If disaster came, flinging huge shadows over a noble name, -if lies, all too readily credited, have distorted the scoundrel Pope's betrayed opponent,-have we not a key here? John was the proud son of a proud mother, a Norman princess of great wealth and power. He had no doubt been reared in the belief, that as Canterbury was in England, the King of England must be King of Canterbury. John had to proclaim this, and priestly tools were forward to oppose. This will emerge.

On 25th May 1199, a few weeks only after his succession, (no lack of energy, no vacillation in this, certainly!) John was in Normandy taking possession of his late brother the King's treasures, and the "duchy" itself. Old chroniclers give us a glimpse of much pomp and splendour around the new King, himself girt with "sword of state," not as a toy, but to be gripped and used. It needeth not that we tarry in Normandy, save that still we have to remark no trace of that "feebleness" which " historians" are swift to allege against John.

On the same day, at the close of the festival, he again sailed for England, and landed at Shoreham, in Sussex, setting out for London next morning, May 26th.

On the 27th, he was crowned at Westminster, in presence of